MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4310333810 · doi:10.2196/36695

The Effects of Virtual Reality in Maternal Delivery: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

2022· review· en· W4310333810 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Nuo Xu, Sijing Chen, Yan Liu, Yuewen Jing, Ping Gu

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Serious Games · 2022
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMaternal and Perinatal Health Interventions
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersPriority Academic Program Development of Jiangsu Higher Education Institutions
KeywordsMedicineLabor painCINAHLAnxietyMeta-analysisChildbirthCochrane LibraryAdverse effectPhysical therapyStrictly standardized mean differenceRandomized controlled trialRelative riskMEDLINEPregnancyPatient satisfactionObstetricsPsychological interventionConfidence intervalInternal medicineSurgeryPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Extreme labor pain has negative effects; pharmacologic analgesic modalities are effective but are accompanied by adverse effects. Virtual reality (VR) works as a distracting nonpharmacologic intervention for pain and anxiety relief; however, the effects of VR use in laboring women is unknown. OBJECTIVE: Our study aimed to determine the safety and effectiveness of VR technology during labor and delivery and investigate whether it impacts labor and patient satisfaction. METHODS: In all, 7 databases (PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, the Cochrane Library, CINAHL, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, and Wan-Fang Database) were systematically searched for randomized controlled trials of VR use in pregnancy and childbirth from the time of database construction until November 24, 2021. Two researchers extracted data and evaluated study quality using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool 2.0. Outcome measures were labor pain, anxiety, duration, satisfaction, and adverse events. Meta-analyses were performed where possible. RESULTS: A total of 12 studies with 1095 participants were included, of which 1 and 11 studies were rated as "Low risk" and "Some concerns" for risk of bias, respectively. Of the 12 studies, 11 reported labor pain, 7 reported labor anxiety, and 4 reported labor duration. Meta-analysis revealed that VR use could relieve pain during labor (mean difference -1.81, 95% CI -2.04 to -1.57; P<.001) and the active period (standardized mean difference [SMD] -0.41, 95% CI -0.68 to -0.14; P=.003); reduce anxiety (SMD -1.39, 95% CI -1.99 to -0.78; P<.001); and improve satisfaction with delivery (relative risk 1.32, 95% CI 1.10-1.59; P=.003). The effects of VR on the duration of the first (SMD -1.12, 95% CI -2.38 to 0.13; P=.08) and second (SMD -0.22, 95% CI -0.67 to 0.24; P=.35) stages of labor were not statistically significant. CONCLUSIONS: VR is safe and effective in relieving maternal labor pain and anxiety; however, due to the heterogeneity among studies conducted to date, more rigorous, large-scale, and standardized randomized controlled trials are required to provide a higher-quality evidence base for the use of VR technology in maternal labor, with the aim of improving experience and outcomes. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42021295410; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=295410.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.867
Threshold uncertainty score0.731

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0060.002
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.069
GPT teacher head0.405
Teacher spread0.336 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations40
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR Serious GamesSame topicMaternal and Perinatal Health InterventionsFrench-language works237,207